New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-02-27
THE L4W As TO BOYCOTTS.


Wor<incmen arc not law-brcakcrs hcic
and there persons who earn their oreaa ny .n s
to;l Of others who do no work themselves anu
prevent others from working. persons VI 'no
.Jawsmith or walking delegate order. whose only
relation with workingmen is that OF the sheafer
with the sheep he is shcaring. violate law thchi-
selves or induce others to do things contrary
TO law. Honest and industrious workingmeh
often fail to know what the law requires anu
so disregard it in ignorance. but as rule they
intend to be law-abidlng citizens. Some months
ago when The TRIBUNE informed them, per-
haps earlier than any other journal IN this
country. that boycotts were criminal. and tha'
all combinations or agreements TO prevent
other men from working were illegal, the state
mcnt was deridcd by many honest worklngmen
who had been led to believe that in these acts
they were quito within their legal rights But
these worxingmen will respect the decisions
Of the courts. They will not question that the
authorized interpretations of lazy by State and
United States courts arc to be respected and
obeyed.
For somc workingmen two recent decisions
will have great weight Judge Addison brown
of the United States Circuit Court. and inc
Supreme Court of Connecticut have just given
cxpositions of State and United States law
which merit especial attention. The Connecu-
cut court decided that certain walking dcre-
gates. who undertook to prevent persons from
doing business with firm which trade union
had boycottcd, were guilty of conspiracy and
mist be punished as law breakers. The lower
court had found them guilty, but they had APP
rcaled The decision by the highest court OF
that State not only settles the law for Connecu-
cut. but it perfectly accords with similar de-
cisions in this and other States. And it is not
by virtue of any express statutory prohlbiuon'
which could he repealed that these acts are
illegal; it is because they arc wrongful at
tcmpts 10 deprive other workingmen Oh their
freedom. business men of their business, anu
the community of its right to trade where IL
secs fit.
The decision of Judge Brown is exceedingly
eyplicit on this point He declares that the
procurement of worllingmcn to stop work, In
order to iniurc the business Of the Old Domin-
ion Company. was in law a malicious and IL
legal interference which is actlonablc; that the
BOYCOTT. the attempt to prevent persons from
dealing with the company, "was not only IL
legal rendering the defendants liable IN dam
ages. but also a Dnsdcmcanor at common law,
AS well as by Scction los of the Penal Code OF
this Statc'' This is Of the last Importance
because it establishes the position taken by
The TRIBUNE, that the common law in all the
States alike prohibits these acts, whether cX-
pres provisions Of statutory law exist apphca-
bic to them OF not. The reason Is plainly
stated by the Judge As follows;
Associations have no more right to inHct injury upon
others than individuals have all combinations and asso
Citations designed TO coerce wokmen become mcmbers
or TO interfere WITH obsruct, or annoy them IN
working obtaining work because they are not mem
bers or in order to induce them 10 become members
or designed 10 prevent employers from making
lust discrimination paid TO the skful and unskiin 10
the dilgcnt and the lazy the efficient and the IN
eicicn and all associations designed TO interfere win
the perfect freedom OF employers in the proper manage
nent and control Of their lawful business or to dictate IN
any particular the terms upon which their business Shau
be conducted by OF threats Of injury or losS by III
reference with their property or traic or Win the
lawful employment OF other persons, or designed 10
abridge any OF these rights Illegal combinations or
associations and done in urherance OF snch In
tentions by such and accompanied by damage are
actionabe.
This broad and clear statement ought to DC
seriously considered by every honest working
man. If he does not intend to become a law
trcalcr he should take to heart the sound
principle that every other worlinSman. whether
unonis, or non -unionist. has his right 10 labor
in perfect freedom, and that any attempt to
dcpuyo him of that freedom is in the nature
Of robbery. punishable under the laws In
most of the States every such effort is made a
msdcmcanor or crime by provisions OF statute.
But whether it is or not in no State can work
ingmcn engage in such effort without law
breaking. 1t may be added that workingmen
may we'll have profound contempt for Gov
ornor, whose duty it is to enforce the laws. but
who pandcrs 20 their prcjudlces by cncourag-
ing them in acts Of law breaking.